AP: Officers’ body cameras raise privacy concerns

AP: Officers’ body cameras raise privacy concerns (via FoxNews, here):

Officers at thousands of law enforcement agencies are wearing tiny cameras to record their interactions with the public, but in many cases the devices are being rolled out faster than departments are able to create policies to govern their use.

And some rank-and-file officers are worried the technology might ultimately be used to derail their careers if, for example, an errant comment about a superior is captured on tape.

Most law enforcement leaders and civil liberties advocates believe the cameras will ultimately help officers because the devices give them a way to record events from their point of view at a time when citizens armed with cellphones are actively scrutinizing their every move.

. . .

Equipping police with cameras isn’t a new concept. For decades police have used cameras mounted to the dashboards of their patrol cars – initially referred to with suspicion by officers as “indict-o-cams” until they discovered the footage exonerated them in most cases.

Privacy concerns? If it captures private moments, yes; otherwise, no. Through prosecutors, the government is always telling the public that what happens in public has no privacy protection. And this is a Title III single party consent valid in most states and the federal system. “Consent” is used loosely because the officer wears it as a condition of employment. When it saves an officer in a use of force case, they embrace it. Otherwise not. When it captures an officer committing a bad act, they might get prosecuted; e.g., the officer in Georgia who was convicted of raping a motorist, and his dash cam and body mic caught the audio.

[Note: This article appears in this exact form on multiple websites this morning.]